Lord of the RLC #6a: A Journey in the Dark (Principles)

The problem with National (Principles)

It was glaring.

But who would notice? The problem with the RLC, I mean.

When “the Belz” began to barnstorm, in the summer of 2012, on the stump for the Washington Chapter of the RLC, I specifically attended a Ron Paul reunion event at Lil’ Erickson’s to listen to her and ask what “the program” would be. Not what the RLC would stand for, but what it would DO. Sandi Belzer Brendale was articulate about a “two pronged” approach: 1, “education” for which she would tap the John Birch Society and 2, “literature distribution” for which she would tap the John Birch Society. So far, so good. Sandi was – like Lil’ – a member of the John Birch Society.

Both JBS and the Ron Paul Movement know, from direct personal experience, the depths of the corruption and dishonesty of the GOP Establishment, something a good portion of the GOP base still does not know.

So a growing state-wide organization recruiting PCOs from a base already seasoned by being cheated, lied to, and lied about by the worst of GOP leadership (who do it to elect worthless oath-violators) was clearly an idea whose time (we hoped) had come.

That’s all Ron Paul’s grass roots needed to know; well, most of them. The organization took off, on Sandi’s coattails, fueled by the JBS-researched conservative red meat and her energy.

But some of us looked into the national RLC and were less encouraged. The Organization’s Statement of Principles, was, in short, diabolical. It held the potential to Undo what Ron Paul’s 30 years in Congress and Presidential campaigns had accomplished in uniting “libertarians” and “conservatives” to restore America.

The obstruction Ron Paul overcame is a wall that once stood as firm as the Berlin Wall separating true conservatives in “the West” from classical libertarians in “the East”: the social issues wall. The classical Libertarian is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights and pro-drug legalization… and other stuff. The true Conservative is on the opposite end of those issues. (I use the word “true” because many Republicans claim to be “conservative” or are called “conservative” by the media and they clearly are not; and the word “classical” because there are many who call themselves “libertarians” who are not pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage, despite the Libertarian Party’s platform.) But the mechanism Ron Paul used to unite them was the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that violates anything Conservatives OR Libertarians believe in. All of the things that Conservatives oppose and classical Libertarians want to see permitted, are prohibited, to the federal government’s jurisdiction by the Constitution (repeatedly).

Restoring Constitutional government is the most important political task before America and something true Conservatives and all Libertarians agree on.

Modern libertarians, moreover, are largely unaware of the existence of true conservatives (as can be observed in Matt Dubin’s “Let’s Party!” speech) because they have been co-opted by Republican Party leadership and, hence, most “Republican” public officials they’ve elected who routinely violate their oaths of office at every level. Libertarians who came to political adulthood after Reagan also tend to think (falsely) that social conservatism (which GOP leadership does NOT represent) is a symptom of the GOP’s divergence from “liberty.” The reverse is true. The GOP’s RINO leadership has diverged from ALL morality and agree more on social issues with libertarians.

Social liberalism is the NEOCONSERVATIVE view.

If Libertarians do like Ron Paul did, and sacrifice debauchery for a moment, they can unite with conservatives, change the Republican Party, save the economy, restore the Constitution, and restore America.

But The RLC’s Statement of Principles”(SOP), left to stand, in just two sentences, makes that impossible.

The second sentence of the SOP mimics the Declaration of Independence, but replaces the “Creator” as the source of rights, with “nature.” No big deal, He’s just a Creator and he’s not hypersensitive.

But the third sentence of the SOP, coupled with the fourth sentence of section 9, undo virtually everything Ron Paul accomplished on both sides: his rescue of the libertarian philosophy from moral reprobation and his holding the GOP accountable to its own Constitutional and fiscal principles. Here are those two destructive sentences:

The third sentence of the SOP: We support a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny; the expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; and the requirements of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

the fourth sentence of SOP section 9: We favor civil discussion of this [abortion] question, but take no position on the merits of conflicting legal, ethical, and religious viewpoints on either side.

The words “expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct” means that the RLC is not content that the Federal Government is prohibited from making laws with regard to those things, it wants the classical libertarian’s views on social issues to become Constitutionally protected “rights.” But those “rights” do not extend to All persons. As was once true with slavery, the RLC wants to allow some persons (including, but not limited to living, prenatal children) to be exempt from protection under the Constitution.

Because, like slavery, it is an “emotional” issue.

The message is clear. The RLC, on the national level supports ALL VOLUNTARY CONSENSUAL CONDUCT as a “right” but does NOT support the Inalienable Right to Life of all persons.

So when push comes to shove what “rights” does the RLC Statement assert?

Items the RLC will not construe as “rights”(things that can legally be done to you without objection by the RLC):

Being Dismembered, alive; your arms, legs and head cut off

Being slowly devoured by acidic fluid over 18 hours

Being punctured, at the base of your skull, living, conscious, and having your brains scooped out

Being thrown, living, struggling for breath, into a bag of bleach, smothered with wet towels on a stainless steel table or

Being held without water until you die of thirst.

In short, the RLC will take no stand on innocent human beings being tortured and literally butchered, unless the proper agency of government decides to give them a protected classification.

When approached about the RLC’s Statement of Principles, Sandi Belzer Brendale universally responded to conservatives: “I know what the problems are and we can fix them [at National]. And the national chair agrees with me. We [Washington] can do what we want.” **

Sandi exuded sincerity. We trusted her. And we joined, on the way to the State Convention, with great hope and trepidation.

** [It is worth noting that at the time of these confident pronouncements, Washington’s chapter of the RLC, through an oversight by the national RLC when the original chartering documents were accepted, was operating without bylaws, enabling Sandi to become its ad hoc chair and appoint ad hoc board members.]

9 Responses

To this I would add how RLC leadership, including national chairman Dave Nalle, supports FORCING Christians against their conscience to service sodomite coupling rituals. They support laws like R-74 in Washington state knowing very well the way such laws are used to bludgeon conscientious objectors in their private businesses. But they do not care.
When I reminded RLC-WA leadership Sandi Belzer Brendale and Matt Dubin of the ways R-74 is being used right now to violate Christian conscience rights, both scoffed.

“Con-sensual ADULT behavior” in the RLC’s adult-rated charter — might as well have been in flashing red letters to Conservative Christians reading the RLC national charter.

It’s material copied from the Libertarian Party platform, slightly tweaked for a poorly-disguised Libertarian insurgency against GOP Christian Conservatives.

Unless the libertine extremists running the RLC convince the socially liberal GOP Establishment to put hedonism ahead of other issues, while giving up on Big Government, the RLC can’t succeed at anything new. It will remain an isolated group populated by Libertarian Party extremist nuts, and a few desperate former Paul Campaign activists who have been duped into thinking that the RLC is the answer.

‘Look at everybody still wanting to wield the government over what they dislike: ” to do good “.’

Really, Doktor Jeep, you ignore the content of all the original explicitly Christian state constitutions with such a statement. You also ignore all the extensive writings of the entire GENERATION of the Founders who most certainly did intend the new MORAL government to be a beacon to an otherwise depraved world.

“I know what the problems are and we can fix them [at National]. And the national chair agrees with me. We [Washington] can do what we want.” ** Would like to see the source of that quote. “…can do what we want.” does not really sound like me, but maybe my mouth got ahead of my brain.

I have stated from day one that anything in bylaws or rules or platforms (Statement of Principles) can be changed if you have the numbers. The RLC, twice chaired by Dr. Paul, has areas that need an overhaul. It can and will be done. Unlike Doug, I recognize that is isn’t done in a day.

The new kid on the block, Washington State, cannot go in and start demanding change. We can, however, do what we did. We used our votes to elect a new board. This board has gone from libertarian, big ‘L’, to libertarian, small ‘l’. These are the libertarians that Reagan talked about (1964-1976). With two of us on this board, we are now in a position to work for the necessary changes. A standing bylaws/rules/SoP committee will begin the overhaul.

So we may not choose to be the ‘wrecking ball’ that Doug is, but we may actually accomplish something through building. I suggest that Doug goes back to his original target, the GOP, and let cooler heads work within the RLC.

“maybe my mouth got ahead of my brain”
Your mouth got ahead of everyone who expressed a concern with the RLC’s national problems

“Unlike Doug, I recognize that is isn’t done in a day.”
Unlike Doug (who’s been doing this many years longer) you said it was “no problem.”

“The new kid on the block, Washington State, cannot go in and start demanding change.”
Then the “new kid” should not have recruited members by promising it.

“These are the libertarians that Reagan talked about (1964-1976). With two of us on this board…”
No, Sandi, at least one of your “two” (among many unknown wild cards on the board) is NOT the “libertarian” Reagan talked about.

“… in a position to work for the necessary changes.”
The problem is that the “necessary changes” are necessary… and nothing has changed. When they do, though, I’m sure all the problems will go away.

Re: “wrecking ball” and “cooler heads”…
Your slurs are not original but follow the blueprinted personal attacks on Doug of every corrupt GOP operative he has ever exposed. Those who cannot debate the issues attack the messenger.

You have attacked a number of other RLCWA members and former members–to me. Perhaps to others as well. And those members so attacked include those in leadership positions. But I haven’t shared that information publicly, nor have I shared the attacks with the people concerned.

Belz, you are in way over your head. People like yourself shouldn’t be running statewide political organizations. Playing nice with the State GOP leadership has gotten you what? Oh that’s right no convention next year. I have told you repeatedly not to the trust these people. They have infiltrated your organization and are now ruining it. I hope you’re happy.